wi͛llcl-ark

@_PyBlock_ @fanquake i’d imagine so. but in case you did not read more than the graphic, that is is showing >3k reachable (sybil) BIP110 nodes controlled by a single operator across 12 /16 ip ranges

Does @Fanquake know what he's sharing? #BIP110

@snapolino @philip_dath They have been known about for some time: bnoc.xyz/t/many-connect… x.com/lopp/status/20…

@willcl_ark @philip_dath would you have historical data when they appeard? in my view its those , different difference is 3'432 nodes. This looks suspiciously like those 3.1k nodes , normal 200-300 fluctuation, but not more than 3k.... Bitcoin community please repost, does any one know TenSpire

Node count ≠ independent support. Data from my Bitcoin crawler shows that of 3,312 “good” (listening + connectable) BIP110 nodes, 3,058 are concentrated within just 12 /16 IP ranges (~255 per range), suggesting possible single-operator control. Excluding them leaves 254 (listening + connectable) BIP110 nodes. For comparison, applying the same method flags 1 Bitcoin Core node and 0 Bitcoin Knots nodes. #sybil" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">willcl-ark.github.io/dnsseedrs/#syb…

@philip_dath If they are single-operator-controlled being in distinct /16's is more problematic than /24's though, for peer selection purposes.

@philip_dath Thats a fair point! I switched it to use /24 and the pattern is still clearly visible (this drops the single lowly Core node caught up in a "sybil" /16). Will push an upload to the GH pages site shortly

@snapolino @philip_dath you can see them on the chart source: willcl-ark.github.io/dnsseedrs/ raw data is from bitcoin.fish.foo if you want to run the numbers yourself

@willcl_ark @philip_dath pls show the /24 so i can check the asn against it. might be the 4k nodes that randomly appeared last week so i can cross check them against your asn list. if this is the case then someone does attack bip 110 nodes because they prefer other bip 110 nodes. meaning rdts is attacke

Updated the charts to use /24 for sybil "detection", instead of /16. Also just noting here, the figures in OP (and all "sybil" charts) exclude Tor nodes.

See x.com/willcl_ark/sta… This is not run "for" (or "with") any version in particular. It's a custom dns seed/crawler which connects to a node, recieves it's version message, and asks for more addrs for its db to connect to next, maintaining a list of connectable "good" nodes as it goes.

@willcl_ark What are the results if you check /24? Did you also run it specifically for Core v30?

@BitMEXResearch @fanquake ah, the charts above the first “sybil” chart don’t delineate possible symbol nodes at all. just user agents

@willcl_ark @fanquake Thanks, trying to understand the data If BIP-110 nodes have a very high sybil rate compared to the rest, why doenst that show up in the donut charts?

@BitMEXResearch @fanquake The source charts are here: willcl-ark.github.io/dnsseedrs/ (and the raw data is from here bitcoin.fish.foo) The fractions in the two pies are similar, but the absolute numbers are different.

@fanquake What does the donut chart show? It seems to show roughly the same for Good and Known nodes

@maxtannahill similar story here; still using a NUC from 2017 to run all that (and a lot more, in fact, plex etc): “Intel 7th Gen NUC, i5-7260U, DDR4, M.2+2.5" SATA”. was £300 + an SSD. it’s never taken a day off, or struggled with load.

The over 10 year old Intel NUC with SSD I use has not only a node but a Fulcrum indexer and Whirlpool coinjoin client on it. It’s cheaper than a Raspberry Pi set up and better performing. It also supports scores of users over Tor as it’s listed on Dojobay.pw

The Bitcoin Block Arrival Time dataset has a website now. bitcoin-data.github.io/block-arrival-… Feel free to contribute timestamps you might have from running node or some other service that has accurate block arrival times.

@0xB10C 🫣

*seven, Foundry mined seven blocks in a row.

We just had a rare-ish two block fork/reorg between Foundry and AntPool+ViaBTC. Foundry mined six blocks in a row. bnoc.xyz/t/two-block-re…

running bitcoin-tui

@PaulRBerg ctrl+g to edit using $ EDITOR

This is the most annoying thing in Claude Code. Hiding raw text when you paste more than 4 lines. Terrible UX decision.

The best argument for Rust in 2026 is not memory safety or performance. It is that AI writes better Rust than it writes C++. The compiler feedback loop is so tight that models self-correct in real time. Every error message is a free training signal. Rust was accidentally designed for AI-assisted development 10 years before anyone knew that mattered.

Outrunning Entropy, Why Bitcoin Can’t Stand Still 🟠 From The Core Issue: A breakdown at the optimizations and fine-tuning done to speed up Initial Block Download for Bitcoin Core users. Read now 👉 bitcoinmagazine.com/print/the-core…

@sedited_ @dathon_ohm i imagine that’s the point

@dathon_ohm Official? Makes it sound like this has went through Bitcoin Core's review process.

I am pleased to announce Release Candidate 1 of the official port of BIP-110 to Bitcoin Core: github.com/v72t/bitcoin/r… Make sure to verify the PGP signatures, which are linked on the release. Special thanks to our amazing community for making this happen. Onward to activation!

Did you know you can build a stick visualization of your mempool clusters and fee estimation using the getmempooldiagram RPC? Did you know that if you also include PR #34075 you can see how accurate the fee estimation for previous blocks was? Sadiq knew, be like Sadiq 🏗️🚢

Would you really prefer a world in which "core" (devs) inject their feelings, preferences and subjective viewpoints into policy, or do you think that perhaps, being objective about what **consensus rules define as valid transactions** will create the best software? Gloria here, with context, is clearly not advocating being "pro-spam", but saying "we shouldn't consider what we _like_ (or don't) when trying to make nodes relay transactions and keep mining decentralised". I actually suspect that you understand this, but choose willingly to misinterpret it. If you would truly rather run software subject to 's subjective preferences, rather than one which is better at retaining some semblance of decentralisation, then feel free; it's your choice as a free agent in the world and you should exercise your right to do so. But please at least try and do better with your criticism of Core developers. I don't know any that *like* spam, and I suspect you don't either. Sources counter to this would be very welcome.

@zndtoshi @rabbitholerecap @MartyBent You mean as in Core haven't released a press statement saying bitcoin is less money? Correct. Their Lead Maintainer until recently said this about wizards and cat photos though: "I don't think this is not a legitimate transaction".

I listened to @rabbitholerecap #396 with Matt Odell and @MartyBent today, where they come out pretty hard against BIP-110, and the motivations behind it. There were many claims of bad intentions, control/power, lynch mob etc. I have to make it clear that I respect Matt and Marty a lot, and I definitely think they have the best intentions for Bitcoin, and have proven that over time. I don't think they made a solid argument in this episode though, and it kinda dodged the main issue (to me at least), that Core have caused this whole mess, and that people are extremely worried about the direction of Bitcoin and the rather obvious philosophical pivot of Bitcoin Core. I am still on the fence about BIP-110. But I 100% do not see BIP-110 supporters as a lynch mob (there are elements of it, but you can't dismiss the whole group based on anecdotes) I found a comment that mirror my position and reaction to the video pretty well, except for me being on the fence with 110 support: "Disappointed to hear that kind of take from Matt Odell (a person I believe to be high integrity and honest) on bip-110. No lynch mob here just a person that believes bitcoin is money and is the only chance in this world we have at true freedom" The video had 288 comments at the time of me watching it. I went through all the comments and divided them into 3 categories. This is how it breaks down based on agreeing or disagreeing with Matt and Marty's take on BIP-110: Agree: 20 Disagree (Vast majority very strongly): 227 Neutral or unrelated comments: 41 This is overwhelming, and I think it makes it pretty clear that the anger and disappointment with Core is widespread and not something that can just be ignored and labeled as a stupid or dishonest lynch mob. It would be great if Matt and Marty would keep talking about this topic from a perspective where they acknowledge that there is a reason people are up in arms, and look more critically towards the reason BIP-110 gained support in the first place. Which imo is the actions, arrogance and recklessness of Core.